UITableViewController Designated Initializer Woes

With Xcode 61, Apple added support for the NS_DESIGNATED_INITIALIZER flag, and also added this to various framework classes. This is likely a byproduct of Swift, where the initializer call order is much more strongly enforced. This goes as far as there’s a new convenience keyword to mark the separation of convenience vs designated initializers.

With iOS 8.3, Apple made a modification in UITableViewController that by now, every one using this class will have seen. initWithStyle: is now a designated initializer. And while throughout the beta period, this was the only designated one, the GM suddenly added both initWithNibName:bundle: and initWithCoder: to the list as well - making this class quite inconvenient to subclass.

Most of your subclasses will have their own designated initializer since they likely depend on some object at initialization time. If that’s the case, you generally want to prevent users from calling the wrong initializer, even if they are marked designated in the superclass.

A common idiom to do this is to declare them unavailable:

The above code belongs to the header and results in compile-time warnings. Since Objective-C is dynamic, this makes calling init harder, but does not prevent you from shooting yourself in the foot. To be complete, let’s also block this in the implementation:

Combining the two makes it really hard to create objects that are not correctly initialized. So of course I also tried to apply this pattern to UITableViewController… which results in an assert. Here’s the designated initializer chain I’d expect:

However, Apple didn’t really play by the rules in UITableViewController. It calls [super init] inside initWithStyle:. init is overridden in UIViewController to call initWithNibName:bundle: since this is the designated initializer per documentation, even though it’s not annotated with the NS_DESIGNATED_INITIALIZER decoration. This results in following call order:

This is very unfortunate, and I assume it’s not easy to correct since there surely are apps out there who rely on this call order. We work around this by wrapping our implementation into a clang diagnostic block to ignore “-Wobjc-designated-initializers”, but it doesn’t prevent anyone from creating the controller with an invalid state. Maybe Apple fixes this conditionally in iOS 9. rdar://problem/20549233.

What other ways are there do deal with it? Did I miss something here?

1. To be correct, Clang commit r196314 landed in Xcode 5.1, so technically this already had support for designated initializers by using the objc_designated_initializer attribute directly.